W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

RE: suggested response re proposed rdfs:Schema class

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 12:47:40 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBB9E@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <danbri@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dan Brickley [mailto:danbri@w3.org]
> Sent: 25 April, 2003 16:54
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: suggested response re proposed rdfs:Schema class
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMa
> r/0384.html
> Daniel Krech asks that we define a class whose members are 
> RDF Schemas. Others
> have previously suggested the same, though I couldn't find 
> any in LC issue list.
> 
> My suggested response is basically that OWL is the place for 
> such added extras.
> 
> Propose:
> 
> ...
>
> (ii) that deployed rdf vocabularies often 'self describe' by 
> including rdf 
> statements keyed off the vocabularies namespace URI 
> (@@examples?) and that
> non-W3C namespaces (eg. Dublin Core) are applicable to that task.
>
> ...

Uggg. Please don't mention namespace URIs. That's a can of worms.
Just say: "... including rdf statements referring to the resource(s)
defining and/or describing them ... " or some such.

For an example:

http://sw.nokia.com/swe/URIQA?uri=http://sw.nokia.com/MARS-3&format=text/html&scope=local&reification=include

And an alternative to owl:Ontology

http://sw.nokia.com/swe/URIQA?uri=http://sw.nokia.com/RDFX-1/Schema&scope=local&format=text/html&naming=label&reification=include

Otherwise, I like the rest of the proposed response.

Patrick
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 05:47:46 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:03 EDT